[dogecoinbase]

I believe that “good” can only, ever mean, “I like it,” and bad can only, ever mean, “I don’t like it.” Morality, in my view, is just how we try to objectify what are inherently subjective personal preferences.

This is... a ridiculously oversimplified caricature of atheistic philosophy, presumably now posted (as the original post predates the current controversy[0]) to imply the obviously incorrect syllogism that if we accept people who are privately religious we're somehow obligated to not only accept outspoken racists, but put them on a stage.

[0] The idea that it should be controversial to deny a platform to someone who's chosen to become a public figure by promoting racist violence is absurd, regardless of any technical accomplishments (which would be a pretty strong characterization of the pointless Turing trap that is urbit). I've already canceled my flight for LambdaConf and in the future I will happily decline to work with people who failed to do so.

[smt88]

> a ridiculously oversimplified caricature of atheistic philosophy

It seemed to me that the author was offering an explanation of amoral atheism, which he explicitly mentioned several times.

[dllthomas]

Wouldn't that apply just as well to an amoral theism?

[lhnz]

> public figure by promoting racist violence is absurd

There haven't been any instances of this that I've seen - I tried to describe the offending paragraph as best I could here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11363002).

[sanxiyn]

> someone who's chosen to become a public figure by promoting racist violence

Maybe Mencius Moldbug is such a public figure, but Curtis Yarvin isn't. Mencius Moldbug was doxxed, not chosen to become a public figure. Do you support doxxing?